Air cars will never fly (911 more reasons)

("Dan Luke" wrote)
...asperses...

Merriam Webster let me down on this one.


It was auspices and asperses - combined.

It's called Montbonics.

Montblack
"I like to watch"
...might be the root of the problem

ROTFL...the perfect excuse for any past, present, or future lack of
spelling/context checking :-)

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
...
Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
and aesthetic problems associated with air cars [...]

Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin.

You came back five years later just to say "I told you so"?

Not that I believe you really had that many people disagreeing with you
anyway. Not in the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup. But doesn't your post
strike you as just a little petty?

Pete

"Air Cars", what a weird thing to spend time worrying about.

well as the old saying goes never say never.
History has proven many things happened that were said would never.
We will probably be long dead in the ground but some form of air car will
someday exist and that is for sure.
--
Mitchell Wing
http://www.mitchellwing.com

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:32:04 GMT, "Gilan" wrote:

well as the old saying goes never say never.
History has proven many things happened that were said would never.
We will probably be long dead in the ground but some form of air car will
someday exist and that is for sure.

It already does, but it's not going anywhe http://www.moller.com/

I could envision something (for light duty) that hovers near the
ground using some sort of antigravity, but I don't want congestion
shoved into the air creating eyesores and hazards far greater than
today's ground traffic.

A.J.

Most of the crap charges levied against air cars (not safe disruptive,
unsightly, eco adverse, security risk ala 9-11) are the same charges levels
against automobiles by people who hate the fact that the auto underpins a
real expansion of the freedoms and horizons of the common folk.

If air cars happen they will grow slowly and an appropriate system of checks
and balances will emerge. Until then ponder this...

Air cars, when operational, shall be no less safe that any other mode of
transport. Ships sink. Cars and planes crash. Trains derail. Balloons
pop. Amish people get kicked, bit and thrown by their horses. All of these
things can be fatal. If they scare you exercise you individual right not to
use them. Do not deprive the rest of us of freedom in order to satisfy your
cravings.

Unsightly is a personal opinion. Everybody has there own opinions.

Environmentalism is an ideology on par with Nazism. It deserves no
comment.

Security is an issue only if we let become one. Technology gives more as
many advantages as disadvantages, and real security is rather simple. If
armed air marshals were available on 9-11 the towers would still be there.

wrote in message . ..
Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
and aesthetic problems associated with air cars, i.e. millions of
people duking it out in small aircraft instead of automobiles. See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...l+never+fly%22

It was based on this man's (and other technophiles') naive, unworkable
vision of air cars replacing most ground traffic.

http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm

Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin. I hope the
latest reason goes without saying! See subject line.

A.J.

You think this will never happen? Not even 10 or 20 years from now?
You're like those people back in the early 1800's that said humans
would not be able to survive going faster than 45 mph.

Whose to say what will come of energy development and navigation
technology in the not too distant future? With our current power
problems and the development of nanotechnology I think neglected
research in Fusion and portable power storage (i.e. batteries) will
start to become more of a priority. Include our ever increasing
traffic congestion, and I see the potential for some sort of aircar.
No, not 5 years from now. But eventually I could see it.

snip snip ...

You think this will never happen? Not even 10 or 20 years from now?
You're like those people back in the early 1800's that said humans
would not be able to survive going faster than 45 mph.

Whose to say what will come of energy development and navigation
technology in the not too distant future? With our current power
problems and the development of nanotechnology I think neglected
research in Fusion and portable power storage (i.e. batteries) will
start to become more of a priority. Include our ever increasing
traffic congestion, and I see the potential for some sort of aircar.
No, not 5 years from now. But eventually I could see it.

I am developing a flying car. It uses induction jet engines that I
have developed, fly by wire technology, GPS navigation.

It can hover or fly at very slow speeds, it has no moving parts in the
engines and it tolerates multiple computer, sensor or actuator
failures.

It will fly following predefined roads in the sky. It can land
anywhere and be driven like a regular ground car. I envision driving
in towns and flying cross country. Hover is not fuel efficient but
will only be used for takeoff and landing.

The development status is the following:

I have working induction jet engines
I have developed the flight control system that consists of:
-motor controllers
-multiprocessor systems
-fiber optic data links
-software architecture

I am hoping to integrate a prototype in the near future.

Zoltan

http://www.vtol.net

In article ,
(Zoltan Szakaly) wrote:

snip snip ...

You think this will never happen? Not even 10 or 20 years from now?
You're like those people back in the early 1800's that said humans
would not be able to survive going faster than 45 mph.

Whose to say what will come of energy development and navigation
technology in the not too distant future? With our current power
problems and the development of nanotechnology I think neglected
research in Fusion and portable power storage (i.e. batteries) will
start to become more of a priority. Include our ever increasing
traffic congestion, and I see the potential for some sort of aircar.
No, not 5 years from now. But eventually I could see it.

I am developing a flying car. It uses induction jet engines that I
have developed, fly by wire technology, GPS navigation.

Are the engines similar to the Gluharff engine? If so, they are very
efficient at converting fuel into noise (with poor thrust, too).


It can hover or fly at very slow speeds, it has no moving parts in the
engines and it tolerates multiple computer, sensor or actuator
failures.


Sounds good -- NOW, let's see it fly!


It will fly following predefined roads in the sky. It can land
anywhere and be driven like a regular ground car. I envision driving
in towns and flying cross country. Hover is not fuel efficient but
will only be used for takeoff and landing.



Why the predefined routes?

Such a requirement removes the flexibility and usefulness of an aircraft
and can even be hazardous (T-storms, ice, fog, etc.).

Sounds as if Zoltan has no aviation experience.




The development status is the following:

I have working induction jet engines
I have developed the flight control system that consists of:
-motor controllers
-multiprocessor systems
-fiber optic data links
-software architecture

I am hoping to integrate a prototype in the near future.

Zoltan

http://www.vtol.net

It looks like an altered Velocity airframe. Again, I see NO aviation
expertise in Zoltan's resume.

I also see no mention of cost (operating, acquisition & maintenance).
Those four engines can be pretty thirsty!

"Zoltan Szakaly" wrote in message
The development status is the following:

I have working induction jet engines
I have developed the flight control system that consists of:
-motor controllers
-multiprocessor systems
-fiber optic data links
-software architecture

I am hoping to integrate a prototype in the near future.

Zoltan

http://www.vtol.net

The cruise endurance is 2 hours, and even at high cruise, of 400 mph, that
is 800 miles. Where do you come up with 1000 miles range.
--
Jim in NC